4 ms·

Your analogy makes no sense to me. When evaluating applicants, the only metrics used should be how well the applicant can do his or her job. Giving applicants

Your analogy makes no sense to me. When evaluating applicants, the only metrics used should be how well the applicant can do his or her job. Giving applicants preference for having some blessed sex or political leanings is generally a recipe for disaster.

IAmEveryone 8y ago
To explain: certain groups are underrepresented in sought-after professions, at colleges, etc. It is rather widely agreed that this is a result of historical injustices, such as racist or sexist policies and habits not allowing women or non-whites to study at colleges, or get certain jobs. That is the bank robbery: these groups were robbed of opportunity. The remedial measures are programs such as the one discussed here, or affirmative action for college admission. That is "taking the money from the robber, and giving it back to the bank". The analogy is that the last action does fit your everyday definition of something bad: you are not supposed to take a bag of money from someone against their will. You are not supposed to make employment or acceptance decicions based on sex or race. Yet, quite obviously, it's stupid to look at those actions in isolation. You have to zoom out, and you'll see: it wasn't his money in the beginning. That's the analogy, just in case your ignorance was genuine.
- Meditato 8y ago
  There are a number of glaring issues with this argument. First of all, it's difficult to identify who the "bank robbers" were/are. For example, I'm irish- my ancestors never owned slaves, and were frequently discriminated against, despite being "white". But being white, I still get lumped in with the bank robbers. Don't you dare tell me what money is or isn't mine based on the color of my skin. Second, the bank robber analogy is a bit "sins of the father"-esque for me. That's a scary slippery slope. Should we make modern Germans pay Israel reparations, 70 years later? Should we promote Jews over Germans in Germany, to make up for the momentum lost? Or do we only help "struggling races"? And if so, who decides what is a struggling race? Isn't the entire idea of saying an entire race is struggling and needs (un)fair advantages a bit like the bigotry of incompetence? Your viewpoint has a lot of problems of its own.

IAmEveryone 8y ago

To explain: certain groups are underrepresented in sought-after professions, at colleges, etc. It is rather widely agreed that this is a result of historical injustices, such as racist or sexist policies and habits not allowing women or non-whites to study at colleges, or get certain jobs. That is the bank robbery: these groups were robbed of opportunity. The remedial measures are programs such as the one discussed here, or affirmative action for college admission. That is "taking the money from the robber, and giving it back to the bank". The analogy is that the last action does fit your everyday definition of something bad: you are not supposed to take a bag of money from someone against their will. You are not supposed to make employment or acceptance decicions based on sex or race. Yet, quite obviously, it's stupid to look at those actions in isolation. You have to zoom out, and you'll see: it wasn't his money in the beginning. That's the analogy, just in case your ignorance was genuine.

Meditato 8y ago
There are a number of glaring issues with this argument. First of all, it's difficult to identify who the "bank robbers" were/are. For example, I'm irish- my ancestors never owned slaves, and were frequently discriminated against, despite being "white". But being white, I still get lumped in with the bank robbers. Don't you dare tell me what money is or isn't mine based on the color of my skin. Second, the bank robber analogy is a bit "sins of the father"-esque for me. That's a scary slippery slope. Should we make modern Germans pay Israel reparations, 70 years later? Should we promote Jews over Germans in Germany, to make up for the momentum lost? Or do we only help "struggling races"? And if so, who decides what is a struggling race? Isn't the entire idea of saying an entire race is struggling and needs (un)fair advantages a bit like the bigotry of incompetence? Your viewpoint has a lot of problems of its own.